European Economic and Social
Committee

Nuclear Energy
The EU after FUKUSHIMA

Laure Batut
EESC Member
Member of Sections SOC, TEN, Quaestor
laure.batut@eesc.europa.eu

European Economic and Social Committee
Kwansei Gakuin University,
November 20111

ENERGY
EU and JAPAN face same challenges
On Energy :- Not
N enoughh fossilefl resources- Needs of autonomy- Needs of independence of supply- Production of other sources: nuclear- Distribution grids- Security and Safety
And now:n :- With the objective of low carbon economies.

Part of Nuclear in EU national energy mix

2In Europey Possibilities of common rules
y Relevant level for comprehensive

debates and policyy EU-M.States :Shared competency on Energyy Responsability to Member States

for action.

European Strategy “Energy 2020”
5 Priorities
Achieving an energy efficient in Europe
Building a truly pan-European integrated energy market
Empowering consumers and achieving the highest level ofsafety and security

Extending Europe
Europe'ss leadership in energy technology

and innovation

Strengthening the external dimension of the EU energy
market3

ENERGY EFFICIENCY
6 main topics

The role of nuclear in the EU energy strategy 2020

4

EU Strategy “Energy 2020”
on Nuclear Energy
Priority: Empowering consumers and achieving thehighest level of safety and security
The contribution of nuclear energy to the EU energy mix
must be assessed openly and objectively
Full provisions of the Euratom Treaty to be rigorously applied,in pparticular on safetyyNuclear Safety
Nuclear Safety Directive (June 2009):
establishes national
responsibility for
nuclear safetyenhances independenceof regulators in Member States
ensures continuous
improvement of safety
gives binding legal force
to international safety
standards (IAEA, CNS –Convention on Nuclear Safety)

5

Continuous improvementin safety and security
Legal framework to be further enhanced:
Mid-term review of the Nuclear Safety Directive(adopted on 25 June 2009)
Implementation of Radioactive Waste Directive(adopted on 19 July 2011),
Redefinition of the Basic safety standards forprotection of workers and populations
p
p p
and
Proposal on Nuclear liability regimes.

Harmonisation of plant design and certification
at the international level.

Promoting legally binding nuclear-safety, security andnon-proliferation standards worldwide
The Commission will develop initiatives aiming at :encouraging partner States to make international nuclear safety,
security and non-proliferation standards,
and procedures legally binding and effectively implemented aroundthe globe,in particular through reinforced cooperation with the International

At mi En
AtomicEnergy A
Agency,n

and the conclusion of Euratom agreements with key nuclear suppliers anduser countries.

6Radioactive Waste Directive
July 19.2011
Key features:
highesthi h t standards
t d d forf managementt off radioactiveditiwaste and spent fuel (deeply under earth)
all waste – from generation to disposal
no exports
establishes Community framework - Member
States to provide for appropriate arrangements
through national programmes
Adopted by the Council on 19 July 2011.

Main bases:
IAEA Safety Standards
Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel andradioactivedwaste management

Transparency:
extensive stakeholders’ consultation
maintainsii andd promotes public
bli iinformation
f
i and
d
participation
M.States agendas to be known before 2015.

7

R&D:
Technological Platform for the
Implementation of Geological Disposal(IGD-TP)
Step-wise implementationoff geologicall i l disposaldilSolving R&D challenges

IGD-TP
Supportpp
to MS
Programmes

Building
g confidencefin solutions

The IGD-TP problems
y Position of IGD-TP vis-à-vis why and how to

involve stakeholders
who do not whish to endorse the vision,
vision is still unclear

y Struggling with how to interact with a broader

range of stakeholders as:

NGO’s
Municipalities and other local stakeholders
Regulators and their technical support organisations
Uncertainty about whether or not such stakeholderinteraction is needed at the international level8Source: World Nuclear Association

Priority: Strengthening the external dimension of
the EU energy market
International cooperation on nuclear has produced good results
EU to encourage partner states to make all existing international
nuclear safety and security standards and procedures legallybinding and effectively implemented worldwide
EU particularly well placed, as it is the first to have takensuch action both in the field of safety and security and has
specific cooperation instruments for this purpose
Reinforced cooperation with the International Atomic Energy
Agency and the conclusion of Euratom agreements with key
nuclear suppliers and user countries.

9

Priority: Extending Europe's leadershipin energy technology and innovation
Europe-wide planning and management are
paramountt forbusiness
f investmentitt stability,t bilit bi
confidence and policy coherence
Implement Strategic Energy Technologies(SET) Plan without delay
Ensure long-term
El
E technologicalEUh llcompetitiveness, e.g. on ITER (i.e. next
generation fusion reactor)

Over 140 reactors in the EU: almost a third of EU
electricity (88% in France),
France) two thirds of low
low-carbon
carbonelectricity
Nuclear contributes to independence, security of supply,competitiveness and sustainability (900 mio tons of CO2
avoided)EU nuclear industry in leading role, numbers of jobs
Increasing interest in new or renewal of nuclear programmes
Public opinion recognises opportunities and risks, and the vitalneed for more transparency.

10Transparency and openness at EU
level
EURATOM
TreatyEU
TreatyArt. 35, 36, 37,
40, 41-44

AarhusConvention

Espoo
Convention:
Strategic
environmental

assessment

Information in case ofAccess to
Informationa nuclear accident
89/618/Euratom

1049/2001

2001/42/EC

Nuclear Safety Directive
2009/71/Euratom

2nd pillar:
Participation
1st pillar:in
Access toenvironmental environmental
information
procedures
2003/4/EC;
85/337/EEC,
2003/35/EC

3rd pillar:
Access tojustice,
Proposalin Council

Nuclear Waste Directive
Proposal in Council

New ways of governanceRoadmap towards
Repository

Safety Directive
Waste Directive

Lifetime
management

Technology Platforms
SET Plan: synergy –R&D deployment

SNETP and IGD-TP- Promote implementation- Platform for learning

11

European Nuclear Energy Forum(ENEF)
Competitiveness, energy scenariosg Roadmapp
Nuclear Legal
Financing
Smart grids
Nuclear Installation Safety
Waste disposal roadmap
Training & education
Non Proliferation
Steering group
TF Public Relations/Communication
TF Definitions/Good Practices

European Nuclear Safety Regulators
Group (ENSREG)y Senior officials from the national nuclear

safety, radioactive waste safety or radiation
protection regulatory
authorities andthe Commissiony Safety regulation,
regulation

waste legislationy Transparency

12Industrial companies
Nuclear industry has national champion companies
from ancient public monopolies in which governments
continue to share capitall (F; I; UK)
They are federated in FORATOM
European Atomic Forum
They reached European and international size World
leader for electricity production is EDF (French)
For nuclear fuel and waste treatment ans storage are
AREVA (France) & SIEMENS (Germany)

Is liberalized market
on nuclear energy dangerous ?
y If all the legal bindings, international,

european national,
national are not respected
european,y by all actors,
by all sub-contractors
included in and out the NPPs,
yes, the liberalized market becomes
speculative,
speculativeand dangerous for safety of citizens.

In that framework, the independent regulators
are absolutely necessary.

13

EU role on nuclear energy – in short
Highest standards for safety, security and non-proliferationon the basis of the Euratom Treaty(i.e. a separate EU Treaty dealing exclusively
with nuclear civil energy)International cooperation agreements
OOpenddebateb
on nuclear’sl’ contributionb
to meetthe objectives of the Energy policy.

In the world:

14

Investments ‐ world

Nuclear Power Reactors

Regions in operation, and (under construction)
World
EU
USA
Japan
RussiaIndia
Canada
China

432
135
104
50
32
20
18
14

(65)
( 8))
( 1)
( 2)
(11)
( 5)
( 0)
(27)

Source: European Nuclear Society:http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear‐ power‐plant‐world‐wide.htm

15

Fukushima: EU Sequence of Consequences
11 March:

Tsunami and beginning of Fukushima accident

15 March: Extraordinary meeting EC/DG Energy (Commissionerllevel)l) withith EU RegulatorsR
l t
ENSREG(European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group)
Conclusion: Needs for “stress tests”
21 March: Extraordinary Energy Council with Energy Ministers
Member States and the Commission invite ENSREG andother relevant bodies
To define the scope and modalities of such “stress tests”
24 May:ENSREG and EU Commission reach agreement

16EU NPPs stress tests:
scope defined by ENSREG and EC

Focus placed on the following issues:
Initial events:- Earthquake- Flooding

Consequences of loss of safety functions from any initiating
event conceivable at the plant site:- Loss of electrical power, including station black out- Loss of the ultimate heat sink
- Combination of both

Severe accident management issues:- Means to protect from and to manage loss of core cooling function- Means to protect from and to manage loss of cooling function in thefuel storage pool
- Means to protect from and to manage loss of containment integrity
BUT :no decision till now about negative stress tests.

Comprehensive and transparent risk and safetyassessment of all EU nuclear plants

Stress tests covering safetyhblh d on 1/06/11.
1/06/11have
been
launched

The assessment will be based on an amended version of theWENRA(Western
European
Nuclear
Regulators’
Association) proposal
Safety and security will be handled separately, with two
different timeframes
A specific group on “security tests” have been will beestablished by the EC and the EU MS by 15 July
Must not lead to a ranking of NPPs.

17

Stress tests – process
Process
Self-assessment by Licensees

National report by National Regulators

Peer review

EC report to the EU Council

Stress test implementation
Key milestones
1 June: national regulators initiate the tests process
15 August: operators carry out reassessments and submit progress
reports to national regulators
15 September: regulators consolidate the data into national progress
reports → first input to EC.
31 October: operators’ final reports
15 November: EC viewpoint on the process – EC progress report to
the European Council
9 December: European Council
12 December: large conference on nuclear safety organised by EESC
End of 2011: final national reports – opening the door
for the peer reviews
30 April 2012: completion of peer reviews
June 2012:

consolidated EC

report to the European Council.

18

High Level EC Task Forcefor the follow-up of the EU answer
to the nuclear accident in Japan
Created on 30/05 by EC President Barroso:
To oversee the implementation of the stress tests, with a view toreporting on the process to the next European Council meeting of
9/12/2011
To analyse the radiation protection measures taken so far
and propose corrective measures if needed.
Membership:
DG of DG ENER/DG JRC (Chair/Vice-Chair) + other EC services

WG createdt d on th
i of
f th
d t
3 WGps
the b
basis
the M
Mandate:Stress tests – Nuclear Safety
Stress tests – Security
Radiation protection measures.

Consequences :The future of nuclear reactors
not succeeding in stress tests announced
by EC on resistanceis not known,

following the 27 Ministers decision adopted on last
21 March saying that the participation to theserecommanded tests will not be compulsory
andd thath

final responsability on nuclear policies
will remain Member States’ competency.
(according to Euratom Treaty1957-8 ).

19

AND NO EU-M.States common approachon Nuclear Energy
EU has a shared with M.St. competency in Energy
policy and only since entry into force of Lisbon
Treaty,art.4Ttt 4 TFEU (1/12/2009)

A general consensus seemed to lead progress
towards centralized common energy policy on topics as
strategy, infrastructure, efficiency, with a first stepon supply in demand to MS to inform EC of all« bilateral energy
gy agreementsgwith third countries » .
Tragic Fukushima has stopped the process. The
shortcomings of the current EU Energy Policy
framework became evident.

As we all know
Populations living near nuclear plants get in
EU a share
h
of
f the
th
b
benefitsfit
ththroughhemployment and taxes, and save energy costs.
Most nuclear damage occurs at the local

level and impacts the local populations andinhabitants in a 20
inhabitants,
20-50
50 kms radius,
radius and thendistant zones owing to the dispersion ofradioactivity.

20

In Europe, where the majority of countries
are small, and populated,* about 25% of the 143 NPPs are withina radiusof
di off 30 kmskf anotherh MS,
MS* and 40% within a 100kms radius.
That means* liability rules are perceived differently
on variation of different risks* debate on ante- or post-regulations on
liability is still open
* cross-borders aspects are important.

EU: State and Public diverse
perceptions about nuclear
became obvious
Governmentt andGd public
bli opinions
i iacross th
the EU
were and remain diverse:
Fukushima has led to more rejection/scepticism:& fear of nuclear is spreading across Europe

Post-Fukushima:
Under pressure of their Civil Society, several Member
States reconsidering their nuclear options

21

People suffer of lack of information
Lack of reliable data
about the « real » costs of nuclearp
Implicationsof Fukushima still under assessment withmuch yet to be reported
Different pschyco-politico attitudes :* to deliver no informations,* or to deliver informations with a strong
confidence* or to prevent at global level (on great medias)or at local level (like with stickers everywhere)...

Society Debatesy All the EU countries are renewing at different

levels the public debate on civil nuclear energy:
philosophical economical,
philosophical,
economical social…
socialy Politicians are asked to openly say their choice:

In France, the just beginning political campaign
running for 2012 Presidency focuses on keep or not
nuclear energy and plants, and that topic is a hugecase of division into parties and into groups inside
part es.
parties.
y Members of Organized Civil Society are notunanimous through Europe: even workers unions,some are against, and others in favour.

22Non forgettable Civil Societyy The debate on Nuclear energy can’t be only a questionof specialists, beetween politicians and big companies.

g to citizens,, the voters,, and to theiry It belongs

representative groups called « civil society »;they must have a say on such an important question
related to generations’ future.

y The transparency and the dialog concerns* the social dialog for workers in companies and at
national level,d theth civili il dialog
di l concerns allll theth citizens
iti
d
* and
and
their representative associations (NGOs, NPOs),=> to have a clear, transparent and organized debate
on risks and benefits of nuclear energy.

Debatesy Questions of employment and know-how,safety and health,has to be discussed by citizens aware of their choices,to avoid arguing on the moment, for instance like this :« If a high‐tech nation like Japan is not able to cope with anuclear meltdown, why should Germany be? »OR:« And why let a few corporations make all the profits when

taxpayers are asked to pay billions for an accident in theend? »

23

ARGUMENTS concerns often:
In favour:

Against: zero risk doesn’t exists

Climate change

Need of security andhealth, safety

Independance andsafety of supply

Protection ofenvironnement for future

generations

Competitivitypy of Nuclear
Energy in the structure of costs
and cheapest costs for users

Stocking the waste during
thousand years: who can be sure?
…

INVESTMENTS
y Investers as Citizens need transparency:

NPPs in Europe have been built for 30 years;
they are now to be renewed or replaced;
and the park-land is always moving.
y Investments are heavy & long term investments ;y So, the visibility is necessary for investers to ensure

citizens having electricity at the end.

y In Germany, Parliament choosent begintob i theth phasing
h si outt in
i 2015;2015

and after Fukushima, Cancellor Merkel was compelled tochange for beginning in 2011.
y And now : How ?

24

Austriay Austria has prepared its phasing out since 1978
y Austria has forbidden since 1999, byconstitutionnal clause, the internal exploiting of
nuclear energy

y Austria proposes now to ban nuclear energyiimports.
ty And ask now EU to stop progressively all theeuropean 143 NPPs.

25

Belgium:to make all people knowy In 1999 Belgium had decided to stop ancient

reactors aged of 40 years, with no new
constructions.

y But, on 15 March 2011, Belgium had announced

more resistance tests on its 7 reactors,
included the oldest.

y SinceSi2009 th
2009,
the lawlshouldh ld havehbeenbrevised.
i d

Still waiting.

26

Czek Republik
y To maintain nuclear option concerning

its 2 NPPsy But uncertain to maintain the project ofb ildi anotherbuilding
th one underd project
j t offcooperation with Russia.

Finlandy Maintains the Nuclear optiony Construction engaged of 2 new NPP isconfirmed

y June 2011: Finland called up for 2 others.

27Francey 15 March: Prime Minister: to test all French NPPs

by independant control authority (ASN)- on consequences of flood, earthquake,- & pbs on electric and cooling systems

y 24 March: French President confirms nuclear option
y But a commission (after 2012 January) will

examinea phasing out around 2040

 EDF Company : to set up a National Task Force toorganize in advance how to react to any catastrophy& reexamine conception of all NPPs and stocks.

y France : 80% of french electricity is from nuclear

and cheaper than othersy France: Nuclear = 300.000 jobs
y France has got incidents on its NPPs
y Frenchs are very sensitive on that now
y Number of demonstrations have been organized in
March, April, June 2011 across the country
AGAINST nuclear
y But civil actors disagree on the matter, as unions,and political parties
y Nuclear: one of the main topics beetween politicalparties for the national campaign for Presidency
2012, and for voters too.

28

Germany

To phase out nuclear
forf electricity
l t i it production
d ti

y In March 2011, Germany decided to stop 7 mostancient NPPs on 17 on duty.

y In April 2011, decision is taken not to make these 7

return to duty in the future.

y And to phase out completely of Nuclear till 2022,

Germany engage heavy investments.

y Before Fukushima: NPP supply 25% of German electricityy Just after Fukushima: 3-month moratorium and the 8 oldest nuclear plants
are put offline
y 30 May: Decision to phase out ALL nuclear plants (17 in total) by 2011 atpg the way
y for a real industrial energy
gy revolution
the latest, openingy Objective: renewable sources to provide 35% of electricity by 2020, up fromabout 13% today (and reach 80% by 2050)
y Germany will become a net importer of electricity (it was an exporter before
Kukushima) during the transition periody Electricity prices hiked in the surrounding countries (Belgium, The
Netherlands in particular) by around 10% after Germany’s decisiony Higher risk of supply shortcuts (e.g. France often imports electricity from
Germany in summer period because of low river levels and lack of coolingwater for NPP) and problems of distribution to be expected for renewables(grids..end of networks...).

29

Case of Germany:some questions raisedon the decision of stoppingy Does the German voter have any idea what it means

to shut down its nuclear power in just ten years?
Have German politicians made any effort to tell them?
y Question on electricity prices for users seems to not have beenclearly opened.

y Nuclear plants supply 25% of German electricity with virtuallyno carbon footprint and with a minimum exposure to foreign
suppliers of nuclear fuel cycle services unlike the German
vulnerability to disruptions in oil and more recently gas supplies.

Italy
1987: after Tchernobyl,

national referendum:fm to renounce nuclear =no more NPPs

2009-10: Prime Minister try to relaunch nuclear:
4 reactors under construction

March 2011: a moratory decided for 1, then 2 years
April 2011 (Parliament) and June 2011 :by referendum, Italians choosed to definitely
renounce nuclear.

30

Netherlands
act r = 4% of
f nat
na electricity
ctr c tyy 1 Reactor
national
y 1 more under previsiony Government preparing a phasing out around2080 , to renewables
y And waiting : confirms the choice of a mix

Polandy No NPPy Government confirms the will to begin

construction of 2 NPPS
in Poland around 202031

United Kingdom
After Fukushima:
y Governement to maintain nuclear option
y To replace progressively NPPs
on 26 recommandations ofIndependant Control Authority
y July 2011: Parliament has confirmed new NPPs

construction Program and localisations

y October 2011: additionnal requests on safety for

NPPs by government.

SwedenLarge Policy for Low Carbon Economy

Maintains nuclear option
2009 ended the moratory of 1980, &replacelandd modernizedi theh 10 NPPs
NPP

32

SpainSpan has votedot
aws to a
o
Spain
laws
avoid
new construction of NPPs
Spain will revise safety of all plants
To launch a national survey on sismicity
and flood risks

Switzerland(non EU country):y After Fukushima Disaster, Switzerland has decided

to close all its nuclear reactors(5 reactors= 40% national electricity)
progressively but definitely till 2019-34,
But remains open to research on new technologies.

y May

2011: Swiss Government estimatesprogressivepgrenunciation will cost more or less
3,8 milliards of swiss franks = 0,7%of GDP.
(3,1 milliards of euros).

thePrices could increase of min.15% to max. 60%.

33

EU: European Energy Ministers
Council Sept.20.2011
y European Commission:

after announcements by Germany, which has
unilaterally decided to phase out all its atomic
plants by 2022, EC urges all 27 Member
Nations to put collective energy needs
above domestic agendas.
gyEC pledges for reinforcing electric grids
and interconnexions across Europe.

The main questions:
Security and safety
Radioactive Waste production and storage
Independence and autonomy of supply (raw materials)
Infrastructures
Cross borders level,
level and ‘international’
Cross-bordersinternational risks

34

Other questions
What kind of energy mix to replace nuclear
electricity? GAS need will increase.
What neighbours to supply Oil and Gas?
(Mono- or poly-?)y of surroundings
g of EU?
=> Political stability
Distribution grids and risks of disruption.

Societal challenges
Rate of Employment
Costs and Investments
Competitivity for companies and products
Prices for users,
users Protection of Environment
Global crisis: speculation /prices of raw
material…

35

Nuclear provides
reliable and sustainable base-load electricity
60%

Shares of Power Generation Capacity and Power Production in the EU (2007)

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ThermalNuclear

Hydro

Wind

Geothermal

Source: Eurostaty To protect Environment and Climatey To
T avoid:
id TechnologicalT h l i l breaks,bk loseloff jobsj by Filling the Gap: Capacity of alternate production?

and reliable distribution[when electricity demand increase independentlyof population or growth, depending of new ways of life]y Meeting low carbon economy:

without nuclear, is return to coal possible?

y Capture of CO²: Where and How?

36

EU COMMISSION established the Road Map

gof M.States:with agreement
For progressive transition to low carbon economy
With ambitious objectives on climate
To neutral to carbon energetic systems* including nuclear energy* as well as renewables

Central point: will be choice of the energy mix
by the MS and the research on future new sources.

37

A vision for the future in EU

38

REAL RELEVANCE
OF A EUROPEAN LEVELFOR COMPLEMENTARYDEBATE AND DECISIONSThe EESC position
The EESC is in favour of nuclear civil energy,
energyif (among others):
y all challenges are public,

and transparently submitted to citizens;

y all legal bindings from european and national levels

on security and safety are in position
to be respected, by owners of NPPs
as well as by all the sub-contracting actors;

y and by all the participants of the chain of value.

39

The EESC position
y mix
y The EESC is in favour of a balanced p
policyon energy supply,y And ask the Commission to urge the EU

and Member States to achieve rapidly

a lowlcarbonb economy.

And for that, targets are :

40

41

The over-riding priority must be, at international level, to keep
global T° increases to below 2 °C
Minimising our use of fossil fuels is the main area of possible
reduction that is under our control
However,
reducing
the iinternationalHd i our use off fossilf il fuels
f l att thttillevel is a HUGE political,
financial and technological challenge
Fukushima has significantly changed public perceptions regarding
nuclear energy in the EU;
transparency and public debates are required now.
A large number of EU “energy
energy experts”
experts still think that
nuclear energy should continue playing a role until a significant
replacement of fossil fuel is realised:
We may ask : HOW ? And WHEN ?

Nuclear energy carries financial, safety, political and security
risks which are not present, to the same degree, with other formsof alternative power
The EU is active setting the most reliable safety and security
standards for its own
Stress tests:
y Impact will depend on how they will be implemented (nationalsovereignty) and how the results will be usedy Cannot not be an opportunity for greenwashing

Deciding that nuclear energy must continue (or not) playing a role in
the next 50 years cannot be done by the politicians andindustrialists alone: civil society must have a say
The EESC chairs a Working Group on Transparency in the nuclear
energy field which aims to support thefair access to information and people’s engagement
into nuclear
energy debates.

42

Thank you
for your attention.

43